The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.

So you are able to comment on their "work" when it suits you, but when pressed you don't know what it is you are supporting.

Quality.

Quote

But I did notice they kinda have their own thread in this forum too, and it's almost 2/3rd of the way to a million hits!

I'm sorry, I missed the relevance of that to my question?

Quote

I knew the UD site did not have a science worthy theory yet, and drove some at the ARN forum nuts by being honest about their not having a theory together there either.

So you know that UD has no science worthy theory yet at the same time The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way ?

If they don't have a theory, how can the science be going their way?

Quote

Now there is Chromosomal Adam and Eve taking a respectable place in science.

You believe this somehow supports Creationism or Intelligent Design?

How? Be specific!

Quote

Dust/clay is now vital to know about in origin of life.

Except it's not in relation to ID, is it? I'm sure your deity could have made humans out of glass and peanuts had it so chose.

Quote

I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".

Then please do so, as that was in fact the question that I asked.

As yet you've given a few examples of what "creationists" like to use in support of their case but we both know that "Chromosomal Adam and Eve" have nothing to do with their Biblical namesakes, and that by "Dust/clay" you are referencing the biblical god.

If it turns out the origin of life depends on light (which of course it will at some level) then to you that'll be "proof" that the bible was right all along because it mentions the word "light".

So your evidence fades away like some much a thing that fades quickly.

To quickly sum up what is most important to myself and all others including JoeG (who I at least know is catching up to Kathy Martin's record amount of ridicule) here's more culture change for your speakers too:

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry". Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet. Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.

You can say what you want about the science in the theory not being a big deal scientifically anymore. I already knew that. Real scientific change that once we once could only dream about, is no longer something hoped for that might happen, it already did.

I know what it's like to suffer for a theory like this. And I knew that Kathy and others (who I did know well enough to be able to relate to their novel scientific problem) got into more than they thought and were shocked by the "scientists" boycotting the hearing. Then came the gnawing question of why they just threw mud at it then ran. But as it now stands, the computer model and theory that is at Planet Source Code is example of what happens when one doesn't run away like that. The experience has even made the Kansas Public Schools ahead of the curve in self-assembly and more, that makes for model school material. Not even Jack Krebs minds that happening, especially since there would not have been the KCFS forum without him and deserves credit for the good that ultimately came from his hard work too. He also needed professor Joe Meert and others who helped keep it academic to stay in the battle after the hearing via the KCFS forum. So with all said, none on the ground in Kansas wanted to be abandoned by scientists. And in hindsight what Kathy and others in the "minority" were trying to describe that needed some patience to fully understand was not a good idea to abandon either. Unless of course you don't mind doing what we want while Jack just gets nervous from all the IDeas I could not help but gave the other side.

Creationists in Kansas and elsewhere are likely a part of the reason the Genesis-friendly science that you consider no big deal scientifically is now understood as being no big deal anymore. That's how the creationist strategy here works. What works for them in the classroom is rightly made a non-issue by making sure it gets taught. They themselves get to introduce it too or explain to teacher, not someone also representing the Atheist movement or other motivator to be one up on their competition in science that is not even in the classroom yet. That's the kind of progress I see happening in Creationism country that I know, the kind that you can do nothing to stop.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.